Officer Baskett was the only witness at the suppression hearing. We take
the facts from his testimony and from his police report, which defendant attached to his
suppression motion. Baskett began following the pick-up truck that defendant was
driving because Baskett had information that the truck was stolen. Defendant ran a red
light, and Baskett activated his overhead lights. After a high-speed chase, Baskett
arrested defendant and advised him of his Miranda rights. Baskett then asked defendant
what was in the truck. Defendant responded that he did not know because neither the
truck nor the property in it was his. He claimed that the truck belonged to his friend,
Aaron, and that he did not know who owned the bags inside the truck. After an
unsuccessful attempt to contact Aaron, Baskett decided to tow the truck and inventory its
contents pursuant to a police policy that requires officers to inventory all vehicles that are
to be towed.

Defendant's girlfriend, who had been in the truck with defendant, claimed
that a backpack in the truck was hers and refused to let Baskett search it. Although
defendant watched his girlfriend's successful prevention of a search of her bag, he made
no similar effort to prevent Baskett from searching the other bags in the truck. During
that search, Baskett found a shotgun inside a duffel bag that had been in the truck's cab
and shotgun shells inside a backpack that had been in the bed of the truck. When
confronted with those items, defendant said that they were not his and that he had no idea
that they had been in the truck. He later said that he did know who owned the bags in the
truck, but refused to disclose who it was.

Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution protects against state
interference with people's possessory and privacy interests in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects. (2)State v. Owens, 302 Or 196, 206, 729 P2d 524 (1986). It
requires suppression of evidence that was obtained through a search that violated a
defendant's rights. State v. Tanner, 304 Or 312, 315-16, 745 P2d 757 (1987). To obtain
suppression, "a defendant is not required to assert a protected property or privacy interest
on which the state intruded. Rather, * * * the burden is on the state to prove that the
warrantless search did not violate a protected interest of the defendant." State v. Tucker,
330 Or 85, 88-89, 997 P2d 182 (2000) (emphasis in original). If a defendant has actual or
constructive possession of property immediately before it is searched, the defendant has a
constitutionally protected possessory interest in that property. State v. Morton, 326 Or
466, 469-70, 953 P2d 374 (1998) (actual possession); State v. Silva, 170 Or App 440,
446, 13 P3d 143 (2000) (constructive possession). A defendant may abandon his
constitutionally protected interest in the property by manifesting an intent to relinquish
that interest. Cook, 332 Or at 608. A defendant does not abandon a constitutionally
protected interest if the words or conduct manifesting an intent to relinquish it were
coerced by illegal police conduct. Morton, 326 Or at 470; Silva, 170 Or App at 448.

The fact that a person tells police officers that he does not own a bag or
know what is in it does not necessarily demonstrate an intent to relinquish the person's
interests. In Cook, for example, officers saw the defendant stooped near a dumpster
sorting through clothes in a duffel bag and told him to step away from it. The defendant
complied and, when the officers asked him what he was doing with the bag and the
clothes, he replied that neither the clothes nor the bag was his but that he had found a pile
of clothes and was sorting through it to see if he could use any of the clothes. The
officers then searched the bag. 332 Or at 603-04. The Supreme Court held that the
defendant had not abandoned his possessory or privacy interest in the bag because,
although the defendant's statements permitted the officers to conclude that the defendant
did not own the bag or clothing, the statements did not permit the officers to conclude that
the defendant intended to relinquish his possessory and privacy interests in those items.
Id. at 608.

Under different circumstances, a defendant's disclaimer of ownership in
property may, by itself, constitute abandonment. State v. Linville, 190 Or App 185, 78
P3d 136 (2003), rev den, 337 Or 34 (2004). In Linville, a police officer stopped a car in
which the defendant was a passenger. The officer asked the defendant whether anything
in the car belonged to him. The defendant said that he did not have anything in the car.
The officer then searched the car with the driver's consent. He found a cigarette pack
with marijuana and methamphetamine inside. The defendant later admitted that the
cigarette pack was his. Id. at 187-88. Relying on Cook, the defendant sought suppression
of the drugs on the ground that the search had interfered with his possessory and privacy
interests in the cigarette pack. We held that he had abandoned those interests. Id. at 193.

We explained that, although the defendant's exchange with the officer in
Linville was nearly identical to the exchange in Cook, the circumstances surrounding
those exchanges differed in one important respect. In Cook, the defendant disclaimed
ownership of the items but, at the same time, actively asserted a possessory interest in
them. We observed in Linville that the Cook defendant's statement that he was deciding
whether he could use any of the clothes, coupled with his actual possession of the clothes,
"[a]t a minimum, * * * manifested an intent to exercise some kind of possessory interest
in the bag." Id. at 191. We distinguished Cook on the ground that the defendant in
Linville told the officers only that nothing in the car was his and did not exercise any sort
of control over the cigarette pack while in view of the officer. Id. at 192. We concluded
that the defendant's disclaimer of ownership, uncontradicted by his conduct, was a
manifestation of his intent to relinquish his interest in the cigarette pack. Id. at 192-93.

Read together, Cook and Linville stand for the proposition that, although a
disclaimer of ownership does not necessarily constitute abandonment of all protected
interests in property, such a disclaimer may trigger an obligation by the defendant to
assert a protected interest other than ownership in the property where no possessory or
privacy interest may be inferred from the circumstances. The defendant in Cook claimed
a protected nonownership interest in the property by telling the officers that he might
want to keep some of the clothes and by actually possessing and asserting control over the
property. The defendant in Linville, however, asserted no such alternative possessory
interest either through his words or his conduct, and no such interest was apparent from
the circumstances.

Defendant asserts that the facts here are not materially different from those
in Cook. Defendant argues that, in response to Baskett's inquiry about what was in the
truck, defendant reasonably could be understood to have said only that he was driving his
friend's truck, that none of the property in the truck was his, and that he did not know
what was in the various closed bags. He contends that, as in Cook, his response
communicated to Baskett that defendant did not own the bags but did not constitute a
disclaimer of his possessory interest in the bags. He also claims that, as in Cook,
although he disclaimed ownership of the bags, he simultaneously asserted a possessory
interest in them when he told Baskett that the truck belonged to his friend. He argues that
that statement should be understood as asserting a borrower's interest in the truck and its
contents. We disagree.

As in both Cook and Linville, defendant here disclaimed ownership of the
bags. He further stated that he did not know who owned the bags and did not know what
was in them. Unless defendant indicated that he had some protected nonownership
interest in the bags, Baskett could reasonably have understood those statements to
disclaim all interest in the bags. Given his asserted lack of any knowledge whatsoever
about the bags, no interest can be inferred from the circumstance that defendant asserted a
possessory interest in the truck. Defendant's statement that the truck belonged to his
friend cannot be reasonably interpreted as asserting a borrower's interest in the bags
because defendant specifically told Baskett that he did not know who owned the bags.
Defendant did not assert, through his conduct, any interest in the bags, nor may any such
interest be inferred from the circumstances.

Unlike the defendant in Cook, defendant did not actually possess or exercise
control over the bags in Baskett's presence. Instead, as in Linville, defendant had the
opportunity to assert an interest in the contents of the truck before Baskett searched it.
Defendant's girlfriend took the opportunity to assert such an interest, but defendant did
not. Instead, he stated that he did not own the bags, did not know who did, and did not
know what was in them. Under the circumstances, those voluntary statements,
uncontradicted by other words or actions asserting a possessory or privacy interest in the
bags or by circumstances from which such an interest could be inferred, demonstrated
that defendant intended to relinquish any such interest. The trial court did not err in
refusing to suppress the evidence.

Affirmed.

1. Because we conclude that the officer did not violate any protected interest of
defendant, we need not address whether the inventory was valid.

2. Article I, section 9, provides, in pertinent part, that "[n]o law shall violate the right
of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable
search, or seizure[.]"

3. Whether a defendant may have a constitutionally protected possessory interest in
stolen goods is not an issue in this case. Evidence was adduced at the hearing that the truck and
some clothing in the duffel bag were stolen and that Baskett took possession of those items on
behalf of their rightful owner. However, there was no evidence that any of the bags searched was
stolen.